Re: 13 Aug Arch Doc available for review (1.2 resources and URIs)

On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 15:29, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> [1]

I think "1.2 Resources and URIs" merits at least a little
bit of elaboration.

I think it takes scenarios and example ala
  "TAG Finding: URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET"
to make the point. At a minimum, please cite that finding.

But let's see if I can elaborate a bit without getting
too windy:

1.2 Resources, URIs, and the shared information space

When one resource refers to another via a URI, a link
is formed. When many resources are linked this way, the
large-scale effect is a shared information space, addressable
by URI. The Web is more valuable for every resource
in the space, and in turn, resources are more valuable
when they are addressable in the Web. Hence:

   All important resources SHOULD be identified by a URI.

The impact of making resources addressable with URIs varies
from linking and bookmarking to unintended consequences,
such as global search services. See also
_URIs, Addressability, and the use of HTTP GET_ for
some details about the interaction of this principle
in HTTP application design.

<footnote>Clearly, not every imaginable resource has
its own URI; there are only denumerably many URIs; not
enough to give one to every real number without collisions

<footnote>This principle dates back at least as
far as Douglas Engelbart's seminal work on
open hypertext systems; see section
<a href="">
Every Object Addressable</a>
in [Eng90]


Whew! Shrinking that down to a couple paragraphs took me hours!

There are a few things I'm not completely happy about,
but I think they're acceptable:

The stuff about "valid use" doesn't seem to fit here.
I'll have to think about where it goes...

"When one resource refers to another..." is anthropomorphism.
Hmm... maybe not. But we haven't really said what "resource refers..."
means yet, at this point in the document. That's probably
OK... we'll get to it in the data formats chapter. Maybe
and explicit forward reference is in order, but I think
we can live without it.

Also... re "resources SHOULD be identified..." -- SHOULD
expresses a constraint on agents. What agent is being
constrained here? I suppose it's OK to leave it sorta
fuzzy, at this architectural principle level. In
the get7 finding, the relevant agent seems to be
application designers.

I'm not sure how <footnote> should be laid out;
somehow, I'd like to be clear that the document
doesn't depend on these notes.

Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 04:24:11 UTC